But he felt it was not for them either to attempt to
make terms with the house by a reorganisation, or to
shrink from the judgment of the house upon their past
acts. Mr. Gladstone then adverted to the state of the
army, and affirmed that the present English force
exceeded 30,000 men. It could not be said therefore
that the British army before Sebastopol was extinguished.
He intimated that there were points in which
the English military system would bear a favourable
comparison with that of the French, though honourable
members would see that this was not a matter for public
discussion. Sir E. Lytton had condemned the government
for not destroying Odessa. Why Odessa was an
open town, with 100,000 inhabitants, and with an army
of 300,000 men within easy reach. Would that have
proved comfortable winter quarters for the British
army? He admitted that the administration of the war
departments at home was defective, but he did not
admit that they were not much improved, or that they
remained so defective as to call for censure. As a proof
of the improvements that had been effected, he instanced
the employment of the minié rifle, the reconstruction of
our field artillery, and the securing of ground for
training the army for camp service. But the censure
was intended to be cast upon the Duke of Newcastle.
If they thought that his noble friend had neglected the
duties committed to him, they were much mistaken;
and however they might vote to-night, he was quite
sure that a twelvemonth hence, if the real state of the
facts should then be known, there would be a reaction
among the just and generous people of England. The
complaints as to the state of the hospitals, and of the
army before Sebastopol, had only become clamorous
since the middle of December. What would the house
have had his noble friend to do? Was he to recall
Lord Raglan? Why, the house had just voted their
unanimous thanks to that gallant commander! Was
he, then, to recall the subordinates of Lord Raglan?
Before doing that, his noble friend had called for a
report from Lord Raglan as to his subordinates, and
they had received a statement from Lord Raglan, giving
hope that these abuses would be remedied. It was for
the house to say whether they would censure the
government for trusting to the representations of Lord
Raglan. It was admitted that the appointment of this
committee was improper and impracticable, and was
avowedly supported by many members as a means of
turning out the ministry. The country would not
understand this. If the house voted a committee, the
country would expect that that committee should be
appointed, and if it was not, the character of the house
itself would be damaged; and he reminded the house
that there were other questions which must be
immediately brought forward, on which the house would
have ample opportunity to express its judgment as to
the conduct of the government. If this motion were
to be carried, he should ever rejcice that his last words
as a member of Lord Aberdeen's government were an
indignant protest against a measure useless to the army,
unconstitutional in its nature, and fraught with danger
to the honour and interests of the commons of England.
—Mr. DISRAELI said his first impression on seeing
Mr. Roebuck sit down, after simply reading his motion,
was, that, as a consummate rhetorician, he had done so
as the most effective mode of supporting his motion. He
might well indeed dispense with a speech in support of
his motion, for that had been made for him by the
noble lord who but a few hours before was the first
minister of the crown in that house. It was said that
this motion implied a vote of want of confidence. He
would ask in what government did it imply a want of
confidence? Was it in the government as it existed
forty-eight hours ago, or was it in the government as it
now existed? Why they had themselves admitted that
they required reconstruction. Or was it a want of
confidence in the government as it was to be? The
House of Commons had often before voted confidence in
a government whose principles they did not know, but
now they were called upon to vote confidence in an
administration with whose very persons they were
unacquainted. He denied that this motion was directed
exclusively against the Duke of Newcastle. His own
colleagues had described him as deficient alike in
energy and experience; but the duke ought not to be
made the scapegoat for a policy for which the whole
cabinet was responsible. Neither would he consent to
throw the blame upon a system which whatever might
be its faults, when in the hands of able men, had
accomplished great ends. It was the cabinet as a whole that
must be held responsible for the evils that existed.
Recurring to the explanatory speech of Lord John
Russell, he said it reminded him of a page from the
"Life of Bubb Doddington," in the unconscious
admission it contained, of what, in the eighteenth
century, would have been described as profligate
intrigue. These dissensions would prove most injurious
to the character of England. Two years ago, England
was the leading power in Europe—would any man say
that she now occupied that position? "Under these
circumstances, he felt that, being called upon to give a
vote on this question, he could not refuse to give it
against a deplorable administration.—Lord J. RUSSELL
entered into some explanations with respect to the
statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and
said, that if the whole of what had passed between
himself and Lord Aberdeen and the Duke of Newcastle
were laid before the house, the transactions would have
a different complexion. He would not enter further
into that question, however; but he could not so easily
pass by the expression of Mr. Disraeli characterising his
conduct as a political intrigue. He repelled that
charge; and as a precedent for what he had done, he
referred to the substitution of Lord Stanley for Lord
Goderich as Colonial Secretary, in Lord Grey's administration.
No man would characterise that as a profligate
intrigue, and he (Lord J. Russell) had proposed no
more than was done there. There was no concealment
in the matter; he requested the Earl of Aberdeen to
show his letter to the Duke of Newcastle, and that, he
was informed by Lord Aberdeen in his next letter, was
done. In his anxiety to keep clear of everything like
intrigue, he had, unadvisedly for himself perhaps, not
communicated his intention of resigning to any one of
his colleagues.—Lord PALMERSTON accepted the issue
of this question as the right hon. gentleman opposite
had put it—as a censure not upon the Duke of Newcastle,
but upon the whole cabinet. He defended the
principle of coalition governments, as unavoidable in
the present state of parties in the country. He condemned
the motion, because it would set a precedent,
dangerous if it were carried out, and disappointing to
the country if it were not. If it were only intended to
overthrow the government, there were many other
courses which might have been adopted without
inconvenience or injury to the interests of the country. He
hoped these unhappy dissensions would be confined to
the overthrow of the government, and that this house
would follow the example of the country, which was
unanimous in its determination to carry on the war with
vigour. Having settled what government they would
support, he hoped the house would not discredit
parliamentary government in the face of Europe by
continuing these dissensions, and showing that a
constitutional government was not so able to carry
on war as governments framed on other principles.—
Mr. Muntz and Mr. Horsman supported the motion.
—Mr. T. DUNCOMBE asked whether the motion was really
designed to institute a full inquiry into the state of the
army, or would result merely in ousting the occupants of
the treasury bench.—Mr. ROEBUCK replied that his
motion for a committee was honestly framed, and, if
he were supported by the house, should be honestly
carried out.—The house divided—for Mr. Roebuck's
resolution, 305; against, 148: majority against the
government, 157. The amount of the majority seemed
to take all parties by surprise, and instead of the usual
cheering there was a murmur of amazement, ending in
general laughter.

On Tuesday, January 30, Lord PALMERSTON moved,
in consequence of the present state of affairs, the
adjournment of the house to Thursday.

On Thursday, February 1st, Lord PALMERSTON
formally announced to the house that in consequence
of the vote passed on Monday night the ministers had
felt it to be their duty to Place their Resignations in Her
Majesty's Hands, which had been graciously accepted.